To this argument must be added, that the _Lex Regia_ does not regard it as an important part of or an insult to the royal authority to sign in the king's name, for article 9 prescribes that the regents should sign in the event of the king's minority, although article 13 orders them to take oath that they will maintain the supremacy uninjured, an oath which would be contradictory if the signature formed a material part of the supremacy: that, consequently, the _Lex Regia_, like other states, for instance, France and Spain, regards the expedition, and not the signature, as the true symbol of supremacy. Formerly this was understood in such a way, as both the colleges and other royal officials, in many instances, made the king's will known, and still do so, in his name, but without his signature. Nor did any one represent to Count Struensee that it was a thing contrary to the _Lex Regia_ to do so. And, lastly, his Majesty's own special order of July 14, 1771, is sufficient to remove the responsibility from him, even if there were a crime in doing so, as it was only in accordance with his Majesty's commands, and to prove his most submissive obedience to the king's will that he acted thus, and were it otherwise, no one would be secured by a royal order. The Fiscal General, in points 5, 6, and 7, of his indictment, brings forward several charges, in order to prove that Count Struensee really misapplied the king's confidence in his signature. Of these instances, the one referring to the dismissal of the body-guard is the first, and it is even supposed that it was based on dangerous designs. What was really the motive for this operation, namely, that the Guards were in many respects injurious to the army, is seen both from Count Struensee's answers and from the documents, to which he appeals in his own memorial. That it was done, however, without his Majesty's knowledge, or that the latter was surprised by it, is, according to Count Struensee's assurance, incorrect. As regards the cabinet order of December 21, concerning the reduction, he positively remembers having read it to the king before it was sent off; and further, that the king approved of it with his own signature, after the college had sent in an appeal against it; and his Majesty himself signed the order of December 24, for dismissal, before it was sent to Lieutenant-General von Gähler, as it was generally reported that the Guards refused to obey the first order. As to the crime said to have been committed in omitting several of the extracts from the cabinet decrees in this week, so that the king might approve of the two concerning the body-guard, I do not understand it, as his Majesty would sooner be surprised by a long report than by a short extract, and the answers of Panning and Morack (the cabinet secretaries) prove that this error must be ascribed to them rather than to Struensee.